10 Commandments + 7 Aphorisms = 1?

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today on the case of Pleasant Grove City v. Summum. The issue surrounding this case is if Pleasant Grove City allows a monument with the Ten Commandments to be erected in a public park, must it also allow other religious groups to display comparable monuments based on their belief systems?

Jay Sekulow, Petitioner on behalf of Pleasant Grove City, argues that this is not a "public forum" case but a "government speech" case. "The government itself is permanently displaying the Ten Commandments in a government-owned and government-controlled park," Sekulow said. Sekulow went on to say that Summum has no constitutional "right to impose a monument' on the city. Sekulow says that by siding with Summum, municipalities all over the country would be constitutionally obligated to accept any and every donated monument, no matter what it memorialized or commemorated.

Pamela Harris, Respondent for Summum, argued that this is not a "government speech" case but a "public forum" case. "Summum relies on the First Amendment case law establishing beyond peradeventure that a public park is a traditional or quintessential public forum," Harris said. Harris argued that Summum insists that these precedents do not allow the city to practice content-discrimination or speaker-discrimination. Harris went on to say that "if Pleasant Grove permitted the Faternal Order of the Eagles to conduct a prayer rally or revival extolling the Ten Commandments in the park, then the city would be obliged to permit Summum to conduct a transcending meditation or a rally extolling the Seven Aphorisms." Because of this, Summum argued, permanent monuments must be provided the same equal treatment.

Pleasant Grove v. Summum is a breach of Freedom of Speech

"This Supreme Court case presents a very engaging and difficult story," said Chip Lupu, Professor of Law at Elwood and Eleanor Davis, on the Pleasant Grove City v. Summum Supreme Court Case that will be heard on Wednesday Nov. 12th. Summum is a Morman religious group that asked Peasant Grove City authorities to allow them to place religious monuments of the Seven Aphorisms (aphorisms are believed by Summum's to be a second set of tablets given by God to Moses) next to the already built Ten Commandments in the Pleasant Grove City public park. After authorites voted not to allow Summum to build these monuments in their public park, Summum sued for infridgment of their freedom of speech. The Federal District Court ruled with Pleasant Grove City, shortly after an appeals court in the 10th District ruled in favor of Summum.

Lupu said "Pleasant Grove City lacks evidence to why they refused to allow these monuments to be built and the city can not discriminate against private voices." Lupu further stated that Pleasant Grove believes that privately owned monuments are not public owned speech and that is the reason why Summum should not be allowed to build munuments.

Ayesha Khan, Legal Director of the Americans United for Seperation of Church and State, said that it's a classic example of free speech violation, picking and choosing of what they like and don't like. "Pleasant Grove had taken on the 'Come one, Come all' attitude and has accepted everything that has been presented to them except for the what Summum has asked," Khan said. She went on to state that if other religious monuments can go up in this public park then Summum should have the opportunity to do so.